tv [untitled] July 10, 2013 4:00am-4:31am PDT
>> any sort of project with complexity [inaudible]. a: thank you very much. let's entertain public comment on this item. >> having served on the [inaudible] as a represent /o*f the cac rep being very familiar with the presidio parkway project i strongly urge you to support this item because this makes a lot of sense. thank you very much. >> are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this item? >> seeing none, public comment closed. let's move this forward with unanimous vote. >> this is an information item.
colleagues. okay. does anyone have any new items? seeing none. i'd like to entertain some public comment? anyone? pub click comment is closed. >> general public comment. >> general pub click comment. speak now or forever hold your peace or until the next meeting. thank you, seeing none, public comment is closed. are there any other matters before this body. >> no, item number 12, adjournment. >> thank you, this meeting is adjourned. thank you everyone.
formation commission. my name is john avalos. this meeting is brought to you by sfgtv staff. call item no. 2 please. >> roll call. avalos present, breed present, commissioner mar? present, schmeltzer is absent and leah pimentel is absent. >> president torres, commissioner cane present, commissioner moran, and commissioner courtney is excused today.
>> mr. chairman, we have a quorum. >> very good. thank you very much. if you can call item no. 3, please. >> item 3: opening remarks and discussion of expectations for the joining meeting. sf lafco chairperson john avalos and sf puc president art torres.sf 31234 >> thank you very much. as chair of local agency formation commission, i would like to thank you for joining us at this meeting. we are at a very critical juncture now to approve the water program. we have received a lot of information from people across san francisco and even across california that we are an approving a shell contract today and that is not the case. we are here to approve a rate for clean for sf program. it's
well within the ability to negotiate a contract for our clean four sf program. what we have here today is well within the parameters of the program. it's very significant that that vote that we had in september wast by the majority of the supervisors and the concern of people in san francisco. not everyone in san francisco, 27 roll -- we have the roll out of the program. not everyone will stay with the program. we don't expect that we'll have necessarily unanimous support from anybody to approve parts of the program. but we do know that there are san franciscans who welcome the ability to have clean power that is generated publically whether it's a combination of bundled power and recs. and the people that
sign onto the program because we believe that moving forward on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an important goal to do and important thing to do for the future of this city and future of california and we have to make our mark in that effort and there are many san franciscans who want to do that. today is a very important part of that process. we have an opposition that has come from p g and e and we have to make sure that this small group of people that try to influence what we do here today don't necessarily prevail that what we have to move forward knowing that we would face this kind of opposition in trying to approve our clean power sf program. this is one step of the process. we are looking to
approving the sealing for the sf program, we believe the rate will be somewhat below that. i do know the pucmgs -- public utilities commission staff, and we can have a high level of the clean energy and supported by many people in san francisco to make the program work and that we will also have funding available to build out our own generation system and we start maybe smaller than expected but we'll build something bigger and a great example for the rest of california and perhaps the nation as well. thank you. >> okay. we can go on to our public comment. item no. 3.
opening remarks. we'll do two minutes per person, please. item 3: opening remarks and discussion of expectations for the joining meeting. sf lafco chairperson john avalos and sf puc sf 31234 item 4: general public comment: members of the public may address the special joint meeting of the san francisco local agency formation commission and the san francisco public utilities commission on matters that are within their respective jurisdictions and not sf 41234 >> one of the most important things to remember when we are talking about what we are talking about clean power is to address the carbon foot print. it's not as if we don't have energy in san francisco. we do have. and the public has to be informed how much we get from pittsburg 400 omega watts. how can from p g and e. we have to
define and the quality of that power and how is it going to contribute to the diminishing of the carbon foot print. today if you look all over san francisco, we have huge buildings using huge amounts of concrete that contribute more to the pollution and contamination of san francisco. today in san francisco we have over 4,000 toxic hot spots which the city and county of san francisco has not addressed. today in san francisco we have over 200,000 tons of methane gas spewing in the air which we need to address. your remarks are very general, and maybe you intend them to be general but somewhere there should be some data of how you are going to contribute to the progressive and betterment of san
francisco. thank you very much. >> thank you. our next item, please? so we had general public comment open now. any public wish to address any item related to the puc? please come forward. let me call the name. francisco decosta. >> again in this process, i attended a lafco meeting and was shocked to witness and see before my eyes a survey where the most those areas where most people were impacted were not surveyed. we have to look at it
this way in san francisco. the south sector is where all the pollution takes place. so when we try to mitigate whatever we have to mitigate, we have to pay attention to the by view hunters point the south sector which some of you just pretend it doesn't exist. if you do a survey in the sunset area far away from the bay view and you say we want whatever power they want, that's fine with them. but the people that are most adversely impacted should be also attended to which wasn't done in that survey. after that survey, we saw no mitigation, no abatement, we saw no process to approach the community and
do meaningful outreach which means go door to door and say these are the types of things we want to do for you. can you participate in this deliberation. it's very easy to fit far away from the area and remote control say we are going to do this and that and something else. it's very important to do door to door outreach which hasn't been done by those people who produce that survey. thank you very much. >> thank you, any other member of the public who would like to comment? >> seeing none and no more cards. we'll close public comment. >> for the record i would like to note that sf puc received a number of notes to this
commission in favor and were submitted. >> yes. we also received some e-mails and all were welcomed with different points of view. >> next item. >> item no. 5. item 5: cleanpower sf >> may i say something? so first of all good morning puc and lafco commissioners. i'm with the public utilities commission. for number of years we've been working together and the development of the clean power sf program. i would like to think that we made a lot of progress with our collaboration. in the last year there have been significant
advancement and modifications to the proposed program which you will hear about shortly. there have been many elements driving these changes, such as the fluctuate ion of the renewable and pg & e program. this will allow the puc roll out through power sf. further our staff conducted a work to refine the program based on a policy direction based on the board of supervisors and our commission. these policy directions are balance trade off in three areas. one is to set fair and competitive prices so the program is attractive to potential customers. so we lowered the not to exceed rate that you will hear about shortly. the second is that
have the program as green as possible while we are achieving these changes are able to sustain a renewable product and the third item is to make sure we have funding to support this product and create jobs. these three have been very challenging to balance and what we bring forward is the best program that achieve these three policy issues. at this point we feel that is a policy decision that we are moving forward and with that i would like to bring up another person that we brought on this year kim malcolm, the director of puc sf. >> good morning supervisors. thank you for having us. i would like to briefly give you an update. there is a memo in your packet that highlight
these three rather small events. one is that the california public utilities commission -- by pg & e the right to retain an option to create an organization that would market against cca's the commission rejected the proposal on the basis that it wasn't in compliant with the commission order. the commission order says you tell us that you don't intend to market against cca's or tell us how you would set up an organization in order to do that fairly. i haven't heard whether pg & e intends to file anything sooner or later. are there any questions about that? no. also the staff received approval for an implementation plan for the public utilities
commission in november. that sort of -- we do have a duty to provide those implementation plans to the commission so they understand our business plan and how we will protect consumers, but they really don't have direct authority over the commission in that regard. this commission. >> finally you are all aware that pg & e and a number of other parties filed a settlement that would create a green tear off of pg & e service and that will need to be heard whether they will adopt the settlement. >> first on the first item to market to cca's. it's kind of interesting to note that we
spend -- and now it's silent to campaigning against cca. but there actually hasn't been silence. there has been a lot of e-mails that we have received, the shell shocked campaign and many people believe that it's acting on behalf of pg & e. there are a lot of people who believe that and i wonder if there is any consideration at the puc that there is a connection anyway between what they feel is between ibw and pg & e against cca. >> the california puc does have rules in regard to marketing in a cca environment. i'm not aware that the puc has conducted an investigation and
inquired about the puc's role and campaign or any other behind-the-scenes or open activities. >> it seems like there is a great deal where now this past week my daughter was actually looking at a youtube video justin beeber and there came up shell shock. i was stunned to see it and surprised that it was not being done with pg & e and collaboration between the two. i know a lot of people feel that way. the puc, isn't that their role to look at that? >> it might be. i think that c puc would probably look at others to ask for some kind of inquiry. we haven't asked for that kind of inquiry. >> okay. just for the record,
my daughter does like justin beeber. >> i'm more of a joanie mitchell fan. >> okay. commissioner mar? >> can you talk a little bit about the green tariff that pg & e is subsidizing the rate and it's competitive. can you talk about that? >> yes, the san francisco is that it supports the tariff to offer to customers. when we analyzed it however there are settlements that suggest that other rate pairs would be subsidizing that product in several ways. the settlement itself is not very clear about how the rate would be set. we
argued that any bill supporting or any requiring tariff for california utilities should stand-alone just like the sf rate has to stand-alone in terms of requirement and cost. >> thank you. what's the bill number? >> i think there are several. we can get you some information about all of them. sure. >> sb 3 is one of them. there are three. i'm sorry. i'm sorry, there are three. >> okay. if there are no other comments or questions from the panel we can go to public comment on this item. this is
item no. 5, i believe. so i don't have any cards. >> i was listening to a person that now works for sf puc. and are we here, we the public, to make statements one-sided statements. now, do you think for a second and i can give you instances that any city department including sf puc has a clean traffic record? so we don't want this gossip like what c puc does i have been
been before puc and pg & e and i know pg & e throws a lot of money there. they have been here more than five years. they take on the san francisco. i also know that most of the cases that the city has brought against pg & e, pg & e has won. the city has won a few but pg & e has won most. i was involved in a case where three conduits were under our force main. by our city, with the knowledge of sf puc and they tried to put the blame on pg & e to compromise our force main. when the public gets home, we the
public, we need the experts to discuss factual stuff. we know pg & e is going to fight you and you need to fight pg & e. >> your time is up. >> next speaker please. anyone else would like to comment? seeing no one. public comment is closed. >> next item. >> schedules of rates and charges of the san francisco public utilities commission power enterprise for phase one of the clean power sf community choice aggregation program for renewable power procurement within san francisco. >> today i can like to talk to you about the history of the
program, just a few reminders. talk a little bit about the program and how it's designed and how we vision it and how we have revised it and made a change to make it a more viable program than it has been in the past. first, as you all know in 2004 the board of supervisors voted to implement as part of it's energy resource program and a way to decrease in-house gases and initiate efficiency. more recently in september, the board voted to authorize the general manager to sign a contract to shell energy and go ahead with the program subject to the usual regulatory authorizations that we require including authorization of our
rate. in march, just before i came on board, the rate fairness board was presented with a 14.57 rate and didn't approve or disapprove of the rate, but they did say that we should be looking at ways to get the rate down. which is something we've been doing. right now, the program's designed so that there will continue to be a hundred percent renewable product using california certified products in the resource mix. we are ready to start local buildup immediately at launch. we are working on some components right now. if we get the go ahead we'll work on it with much more vigor. we have a contract as you know with shell
that wee been negotiating and we'll continue to work on with the approval of the board of supervisors and we are also looking into ways to bring procurement in-house. we have expertise. the staff have been scheduling power from many resources for many years. i understand that there are also some excess supplies that might be able to serve the cca. of course we would pay for that power so the city was either better off or indifferent. as you know our plan is to initially launch in the neighborhoods where we got the most positive responses from customers in several surveys. we will not include low income customers as part of this process. that was because the rate was a bit higher at one point. we might change our views on that if we can get the
rate that for care customers that is comparable for pg & e and they are always welcome to join us. finally we have a rather elaborate customer outreach and education plan that we've developed internally to make sure that everybody understands what the program does and the rights are and ways they can opt out or enroll. as our general manager mentioned, we tried to hear you and also the rate fairness board and our board of supervisors with regard to finding what we call internally a sweet spot for these policy preferences. we want a fair and reasonable rate, we want a product as green as it can be in light of everything else and we want some resources so that we can go forward with the build out which was envisioned
by the board of supervisors in 2004, and i think in several forms since then. since the september vote by the board of supervisors, some good things have happened. prices have fallen for products that we can buy on the market. pg & e proposed a tariff which is good for customers and makes us more vigilant about what we are doing and supporting this model, i will say that energy authority has been very successful with it's program. all of marine counties now being served in some development stage with 60 omega watts with power locally and they have signed all residents of the city of richmond. they have a very low opt out rate.
they have had a lot of very positive experience. as you all know the county of sonoma is putting this with cca and have very low bids to provide this and others in california looking at cca to see if they can be components of a bigger research strategy. a few things have changed to allow us to reduce the rate. today it's 11.9 cents we've proposed recs as a way to reduce the rate which i understand is 3 cents of the lower rate attributable to the rates if that is the direction we'll go